(10-06-2017 11:20 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 10:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So I recently learned that Charter Spectrum has a Roku app. Stay with me here.

It's the exact same thing as Vue, Sling, DTV Now 's apps ... you load one app that gives you a quasi/software cable box feel/interface. You have access to the channels that you pay for in your Spectrum subscription. So you don't technically even need a cable box. You can just use your Roku.


This is what everyone will do. DTV, DISH, Comcast, Charter, etc. At a minimum, they'll have it as an option. Probably some will go completely this route and do away with their entire box rental operation altogether.


So at that point ... there's no difference. You have a Roku, you pay $20, $35, $50 a month, whatever, and you get some amount of channels that you view through a Roku app. What's the difference if you pay the bill to Sling or to Comcast??

Hmm...that is interesting. there really is no difference who you pay the bill too in that scenario.
Maybe the cable companies will head in that direction. The big issue right now with cable is the box and how they charge $7 - $10 per box each month. Then the DVR fee on top of that if you want that capability. Take that away and the overall price can come down pretty sharp without any internet package tied to it.

I tell ya, in about another 2 years, we'll see even more internet companies that a customer can choose for their home. Hughes Satellite is pretty expensive right now, but when they come down in price, that give the consumer at least 3 choices (cable internet, phone line, satellite). Then the wireless companies my get involved for the home depending on the 5G technology and bandwidth they may have. We already see them offering deals for the phone like ATT's offer DirecTV Now for $10 with wireless service. T-Mobile picking up the tab for Netflix steaming..etc.

At least from what I've seen on this board, people are/were mad about paying $200/mo bills to a cable company. Then, they can switch to Sling/VUE etc and drop their total bill down to say $50-60/mo for internet and another $30-40/mo for TV.

So I find it hard to believe that $110/mo is going to box rental fees and DVR/HD fees (the latter of which I agree are pure BS, and will very quickly die off when the coming technology changes).

Sorry, but if you're forking over $100/mo in box rental fees ..... something's wrong upstairs.


Unfortunately, I highly doubt there will be a lot of new choice when it comes to residential land-line internet service. The problem is the investment that has to be made in a physical network. You've got to lay miles of fiber optic cable, install switches/routers in neighborhoods, etc. Even if a city builds that with public dollars ... you can't really "share" that infrastructure between multiple providers. One company will be in control of it at a time.

That's just the rub with getting the data out to the homes. It's a monopolistic type deal to its core, unless you actually have multiple companies willing to install parallel networks. To a large extent, the best shot at that is to have the cable company and the phone company having competing new fiber network installations. That probably has and will be true in some areas.


The only true way we're going to see a lot of competition for residential internet service is via wireless. But that's still a long ways off. Maybe one day in our lifetimes. Maybe sooner than I think too ... but at this time, it's not feasible or realistic to provide full internet service to everyone in a residential area using just wireless. Too expensive yet.